New moves on Tuesday by That Randall S. “The Unhinged Attorney” Newman, Esq, on behalf of Christopher “Denver Metro Audits” Cordova rattled the first amendment anti-auditing community as the pair filed a motion for e-mail service in Cordova’s lawsuit against Frauditor Troll.
Newman had previously filed an amended complaint on behalf of Cordova that alleged that Jonathan “Frauditor Troll” Huneault was not truthful in claiming ownership of his channel as Google’s records indicate that the channel is owned by Nneka Ohiri.
Tuesday’s filing goes further, revealing that Ohiri registered the AdSense billing profile associated with Huneault’s channels was created on or about January 26, 2022, with the full profile being finished on or about August 23, 2022.
Also included in the filing is the unredacted billing information leading to an Ontario address and full telephone number for Ohiri, which also lists frauditortroll@gmail.com as the contact e-mail for the account.
In the filing of multiple DMCA Counterclaims, Jonathan Huneault claims full ownership and responsibility for the Frauditor Troll YouTube channel and listed a New York city address for service along with the frauditortroll@gmail.com e-mail address.
According to Newman’s filing, Huneault himself has been silent on the lawsuit, providing no response to e-mailed waiver forms. However, after receiving the e-mail, Huneault removed 1,700 videos from his YouTube channel, including most of the videos named in the lawsuit.
A subsequent attempt to serve Huneault at the New York address that he provided failed as Huneault failed to provide a suite number required for delivery of mail to the address. If it were an error by Huneault, he made the same mistake twelve times between July and October 2024, as each of his DMCA counterclaims filed by Huneault contain the same mailing address for service.
Google’s response to a subpoena filed by Newman on Cordova’s behalf, then showed that Huneault was apparently untruthful in his response to his DMCA counterclaim as the AdSense account was owned by Ohiri along with the Ontario mailing address.
Huneault himself also mentioned in a recent face reveal that he and his wife reside in Canada, despite unconfirmed stories over the years told by the couple that they lived in New York and were just using a friend’s Canadian address for mail service to protect themselves from doxing.
Strangely, Newman’s motion also suggests that service can be done through attorney Patrick J. D’Arcy, who previously made a failed attempt to file an Amicus brief in the lawsuit on behalf of Huneault.
“Further, D’Arcy, whose email address is pat@patricklaw.net, admitted in his purported “Amicus” submission that he had extensive discussions with Defendants regarding this lawsuit. Service to these addresses is therefore reasonably calculated to provide actual notice.
Defendants’ awareness of this case is beyond dispute. Their refusal to accept service tracks directly with D’Arcy’s threat to make this litigation “very expensive and difficult”. This demonstrates that Defendants’ evasion is not incidental but strategic, likely guided by D’Arcy’s advice, and will continue absent court intervention.”
While D’Arcy’s motion was rejected by the court and D’Arcy has not issued a public statement since the ruling denying the motion, his actions leading up to the filing remain a concern for Newman and Cordova.
Attorney Newman contended in the filing that D’Arcy’s actions in filing the brief were more extreme than existing examples of case law allowing for e-mail service. His filing, Newman commented that D’Arcy made himself a party for service when he voluntarily interjected himself into the litigation and when admitted his extensive discussions with Huneault, despite Huneault not being a client.
Newman went on to justify the request for e-mail notification in a statement to ReallyCoolNews, “This ex parte motion is about basic fairness. Defendants can’t hide behind a fake New York address when Google’s own records prove they’ve been monetizing from Canada the whole time. And thanks to Mr. D’Arcy’s unsolicited filings, the Court already knows they’re fully aware of this lawsuit. The law is clear — courts routinely authorize email service in Internet disputes. We’re simply asking the Court to hold Defendants to the sworn promises they made in their DMCA counter-notices.”
The motion by Newman is still pending before the Court.
JF Attorney Newman contended in the filing that D’Arcy’s actions in filing the brief were more extreme than existing examples of case law allowing for e-mail service. His filing, Newman commented that D’Arcy made himself a party for service when he voluntarily interjected himself into the litigation and when admitted his extensive discussions with Huneault, despite Huneault not being a client.
I had to sit on this for a while. Sometimes, when the stupid is this thick it is hard to get your mind around such a stupid assertion.
So Darcy should accept service cause he has talked to FT.
Darcy by filing an Amicus has injected himself into the suit such that he is in some way a party to the suit.
And that Darcy should somehow be treated as if he was the lawyer of FT even though they acknowledge that he is not.
So, therefore, Jim, under this legal theory, you have to accept any and all service for all commentators because you placed a heart next to their comments. You communicated with them.
An amicus brief is called a friend of the court, not a lawyer for either side. It means i am on the side of the court. It does not mean I am representing the other guy. Take any SCOTUS case and they can sometimes have hundreds of such briefs and none of them are considered lawyers for the other side. But ignoring that he should be the one who can be served as if he were the lawyer for FT. Even though FT has a real lawyer waiting in the wings who is presently laughing at all of this. Complete with downloading of all the videos and screenshots of ever comment made.
So, the legal theory is that they should be able to serve on Darcy who then can serve on FT by a court mandate because Darcy talked to FT, Okay… but we are missing something here…
Where is Darcy on all this?
No comment at all?
I wonder why?
I don’t think he knows how the court will rule. On the facts outlined, if they were to do that to a normal person, the answer would clearly be no, they cannot shift the burden to a third party for service.
But Darcy is not an average person, he is a lawyer. That means he owes a greater duty to the court then a normal person. As an officer of the court, he has a duty to do things above that of a normal person. So, the court may very well enlist his assistance in serving FT.
Here comes the kicker. right in their @$$
Darcy gets paid to do things like this. He gets paid to serve papers on people.
So being mandated to serve papers as a third party on someone who is not a client, someone has to pay him. Hmmm and that would be? The one who mandated the service. Our great friend, the one and only legal scholar randy the pro boner from bang kok. AKA imperial grand wizard of the bigots club and homophobic central. The one and only. The man, the myth, the legend. Who seemingly cannot think past the next 30 seconds in what his actions imply.
You get Darcy to delivery the summons. He gets on a plane, or sends someone on a plane, first class, no less, and fly’s them to Canada, Hotel, food car allowance and oh wait, darcy only has a phone number that does not work any more. Burner phone.
But say he did knock on FT door and hands over the summons. Then what? He hands the many thousands of dollars bill to the wonderkin of lawyers, after a lawyer deserves to be paid.
What, he won’t pay? More likely they cannot pay, cause remember this scam is make money but so far all it has done is cost money. No matter, reality should not interfere with YT delusions.
So Darcy hands the bill to the courts for payment. And the judge then orders the bill paid by… Same person.
See how simple this is.
It gets worse. Darcy takes the time to serve FT and fails. He still submits a bill. And he still gets paid for his time. All because, the second greatest legal mind on YT, only bested by chilli, has asked the court to mandate him to serve the lolsuit on FT.
Good job boys!
I have been struggling with this all morning, I don’t if this is sheer stupidity? Incompetence or another manic episode. It could be blind drunkenness as well. Who knows.
And they think they have struck gold and sheer genius!
At this point, I think I have to start keeping a list of just how many stupid things they can do to themselves. No wonder the other sides are staying out of this fight, when your plantive is wrecking their case all by themselves, just let them.
I have come to a conclusion on this whole Lolsuit issue. The stupidest thing so far:
Was not volunteering to pay Darcy’s bill
Not suing a video with 85 million views but not monetised
Suing lawyers for standard legal replies who are representing their clients.
The regular threats, intimidation and behavior more inclined to really bad gangster movie
Thinking they can serve Irish in Ireland by email. Cause a California court said so. Cept you cannot under Irish law. So, it does not matter what California says to begin with.
Oh and there is the scam Irish is running with a fake website, a fake lawyer and a fake co-owner. And they fell for it. Just like chill did a few years ago. They are such jokes, that any attention, any at all, oh oh oh a real lawyer has contacted us, oh boy oh boy oh boy. Cept they never bother to confirm that it was from a lawyer, a real lawyer, not Irish sending them up again?
Starting a war with Darcy over what? (Funny thing, Darcy says show me how many million dollar settlements you have over the last few years and listed his many. Normally, i would doubt this on its face, but with so many people out there, if Darcy had lied there would be a hundred videos about it. So far, none. So it might even be true.) Who do you not want to piss off? Someone who will kick your @$$ is court.
And so many others, too many to number here.
No the stupidest thing of all was trying this scam in the first place. A lawsuit, a real lawsuit could cost 100K to begin with. The cheapest it in the 10K range. They think they are going to “sue” and recover that much money? DMA has to crowd fund for a filing fee. He thinks he can get Dr Dave to pay him 35K? They think a judge is going to look at any of this an award them anything? And if they do win, the person will simply shut their site down and move on to a new one. Lawyers are downloading everything single video, comment and quote from these clowns and their lawyer. All of which is going to be used in court against them….
Gasp!
It just occurred to me, They are never going to make it to court. They never intended to. They just want to scam as much money as they can, as fast as they can. 90% of the suits are DOA. The other 10% are legally deficient on their face for lack of stating a claim.
Oh and, I just have to say this, some failure as a law student think this is “legal analysis.” No wonder why he lost a suit over a one page contract he did not understand or simply did not read. Nope, this is usenet analysis. YT analysis. Or as is my calling, merely the sweet words of a usenet troll getting under tne skin of pretentious grifters who know that only with threat, intimidation and coercion are they ever going to get anywhere. Someone openly mocking them, pointing out their flaws and generally laughing at them openly is going to get them upset,
How upset? So upset that in drunken rant they exposed their inner conflict, and hatred of their selves. The funniest part is, they think anything they say says something about me. It’s all about you baby! All about you.
Maya Angelou
When people show you who they are, believe them the first time.
I wonder if YT will print this or not? Let go see!